The long-standing feud between the Adair County Commission and the Adair County Humane Society continues with the commission rejecting the shelter’s latest offer regarding the agreed-upon costs of taking in stray or vicious animals from the county.

The commission voted unanimously Tuesday to reject the Adair County Humane Society board’s request of a $10,000 flat fee per year and a $70 charge per animal brought to the shelter by county employees such as sheriff’s deputies.

The disagreement stems from a multiple-year debate over what the county should pay the shelter for it to take its stray and vicious animals. Since the start of that debate at least two years ago, the county has not had an agreement in place with the shelter, leading to uncertainty over what to do with stray or vicious animals in the county.

County commissioners say the shelter is being unreasonable and asking for thousands of dollars per animal while shelter board members say the commission is not helping pull its own weight in supporting its operations.

“I called the sheriff’s office and said, ‘We no longer accept the animals,’ and the rest is up to him,” said Jackie Eaton, board treasurer and member in charge of shelter operations.

Previously, the commission had been making an annual donation of $1,500 with any additional costs to come out of the sheriff’s budget for the shelter to take its vicious animals. County Commissioner Carson Adams said in the past year, about five dogs had been taken by the sheriff’s office to the shelter.

“When [Sheriff] Robert Hardwick came in, he decided he wanted to be a dog catcher, as well, and that’s where the problem started,” Adams said.

Adams said with a different focus and significantly more animals being taken to the shelter, a number of animals had included non-vicious dogs that were simply considered strays.

Hardwick said his office has been working with the shelter and had been taking more than just vicious animals to the shelter.

“We’ve been taking animals as we’ve needed to,” he said.

Hardwick said he has been paying for the animals out of his budget using civil process fees and was reimbursed through the county prosecuting attorney. He was unable to provide a number of animals deputies had taken to the shelter in the past year.

The commission will be extending another counter-agreement to the shelter, offering the original $1,500 annual donation and the arrangement that the sheriff’s office would pay $80 per dog once that donation was depleted.

Page 2 of 2 -

But it’s unlikely the board will accept a deal that provides less than is necessary to cover those costs or the shelter’s operation, Eaton said, pointing to other entities like the city that pay considerably more than the commission ever has.

“We have no question, we take everything the city brings in, because they pay us,” Eaton said.

The shelter receives $30,000 annually from the city, which uses the shelter to house vicious and stray animals.

But the disagreement also extends to the number of animals being attributed to the county.

Adams said most recently that county employees were instructed to only take vicious animals, such as a dog that had bitten someone, to the shelter and leave stray animals to be. Eaton accused the commission of telling residents to bring in stray animals themselves, since they couldn’t be linked, or charged, to the county.

“We’re talking about all animals brought in from the county,” Eaton said. “And vicious animals put our people in danger and you’re talking more insurance, more liability. There are animals coming in almost daily from the county.”

But with the commission disputing the number of animals brought by the sheriff’s office to the shelter, saying less than 10 dogs annually were being dropped off, that $10,000 flat fee would mean costs of more than $1,000 per dog.

“There’s no way in this world we’re agreeing to that,” Adams said. “We’re supposed to be looking out for tax payers’ dollars.”

With the commission rejecting the latest offer, the shelter board will meet and discuss its options, but both sides acknowledged that without an agreement in place, county animals have suffered.

“We just have a business to run and that’s what we’re trying to do and they have a business to run, the county, and we’re doing everything we can,” Eaton said. “We’re trying our best to serve the animals and take care of them.”

Adams noted that as far as he was concerned, the “big losers are the animals themselves.”